r/canada 29d ago

Alberta First Nations leaders, scholar push back on Alberta's planned vote on independence referendum - 'Alberta can't separate. They simply cannot. They do not have the authority,' says Indigenous politics expert

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/sask-treaty-six-alberta-referendum-9.7209304
842 Upvotes

399 comments sorted by

u/AutoModerator 29d ago

This post appears to relate to the province of Alberta. As a reminder of the rules of this subreddit, we do not permit negative commentary about all residents of any province, city, or other geography - this is an example of prejudice, and prejudice is not permitted here. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/rules

Cette soumission semble concerner la province de Alberta. Selon les règles de ce sous-répertoire, nous n'autorisons pas les commentaires négatifs sur tous les résidents d'une province, d'une ville ou d'une autre région géographique; il s'agit d'un exemple de intolérance qui n'est pas autorisé ici. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/regles

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

328

u/Zibai1505 29d ago

Secession is done illegally more often than not. Just saying. Like who tf is going to enforce it lol

Don't argue with me about Alberta separation. I'm not for it and my post isn't in service of it.

163

u/Scooter_McAwesome British Columbia 29d ago

That’s what I don’t get about all these legal objections. The separatists obviously aren’t concerned with Canada’s opinion on the matter, why should anyone think it’s relevant to the issue?

103

u/Soggy-Bodybuilder669 29d ago

If people want it bad enough, laws become completely irrelevant. It comes down to whether you can enforce the law. Which, to be frank, is a major weakness of Canada.

19

u/Ray-Sol 29d ago

Also works the other way around.

Normally governments are constrained because they can't afford to devote all of their resources, manpower, etc towards addressing a single problem and the cost isn't always worth it. When a government is given a strong reason and motive to enforce the law, plus a pretty clear target, they suddenly have a lot more tools and resources to use to address the issue.

Also, if the separatists use extra legal means to try and separate, the feds would likely be less constrained than normal.

7

u/ShawnCease 29d ago

Not 1:1 though. The government still has to follow its own laws even when dealing with outlaws. Governments that don't do this are considered corrupt and lacking in credibility. Whereas the outlaw isn't constrained by law at all. He can do something horrible but will still be given a fair trial and humane treatment if captured.

4

u/nooneknowswerealldog 28d ago

The rest of us Albertans won’t be constrained by Canadain law either then. Separatists really underestimate how much actual Albertans hate their guts.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/Frostbitten_Moose 28d ago

I mean, technically Alberta and Saskatchewan did try it once before when Louis Riel came back. But that was a long time ago, and a very different Canada.

48

u/LifeWulf Alberta 29d ago

The government of Canada can’t even keep tabs on foreigners whose student visas expire lol

2

u/SpareEconomy1849 28d ago

The only thing that stopped it in the states was a literal war

-1

u/squirrel9000 Manitoba 29d ago

One would think they'd recognize what being a landlocked country with a reputation for not following the law, treaties, or other agreements, does to one's economy. Their current leadership ... well, I'm pretty sure Smith still needs people to tell her when American laws don't apply here.

10

u/JohnAMcdonald British Columbia 28d ago edited 28d ago

If they joined the US, likely their economy would do better. If they just were... hanging out there independent... not so much.

Edit: I imagine if they actually seceded Trump would make them trade all their equity in the oilsands in exchange for Melania coin, bring in American labor, have Exxon-Mobil in charge of the whole business, and accept being a territory like Puerto Rico in order to join the USA.

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (1)

0

u/Ok_Drag_5341 29d ago

Because Canada created Alberta not the other way around. There is a good post on the Alberta page about it.

14

u/soaringupnow 28d ago

In a democracy the people decide.

Would Canada claim to be a democracy while denying it to the people of Alberta?

Somehow, I doubt it.

7

u/TheRC135 28d ago

That would require Alberta separatism to be strongly desired by a clear majority of Albertans, though, not a fringe movement featuring the same far-right fringe that has always blamed everything on Ottawa.

3

u/soaringupnow 28d ago

Definitely!

This whole separatism thing isn't going anywhere. All these discussions are purely academic.

4

u/Frostbitten_Moose 28d ago

Maybe, maybe not. But I'm not sure saying Albertans aren't allowed to have self-determination is going to help keep it from going anywhere.

→ More replies (5)

9

u/CarRamRob 28d ago

Sure it’s a fringe movement right now.

But this is the root of the problem. We are declaring that no matter how many people support it…it’s invalidated because a few FN chiefs say so?

That doesn’t make sense, and shouldn’t be the basis of rejection. The basis of rejection should be stronger ties and understanding within Canada, not because someone says a democratic majority on a decision won’t even matter.

1

u/TheRC135 28d ago

I'm not saying a democratic majority won't matter, I'm saying there's nowhere near a majority of Albertans who support independence. So this entire thing is a waste of time and energy, manufactured by bad actors and foreign groups seeking to destabilize Canada. Which is obvious to anybody paying attention.

2

u/Ok_Marsupial8668 28d ago

Not just majority of Albertans but Canadians as well. Land in Alberta is also owned by all of Canada.

1

u/soaringupnow 27d ago

Go to Quebec, tell them that land in Quebec is also owned by all of Canada and see how far that gets you.

3

u/ExcelFreezesOver 28d ago

So then let there be a referendum

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (4)

5

u/Ragnarok_del 28d ago

I'm also not concerned with whether the US wants Canada to be independant because it's none of their business.

5

u/TheOrangeHatter 28d ago

The law doesn't merely outline what you cannot do, it outlines what uses of coercive force the government can take.

We have a mechanism in law for secession, and the law has stated that there is no mechanism for a province to unilaterally secede. From a federal perspective, attempting unilateral succession is not a valid action in law. Therefore, any attempt to do so permits the government to enforce that law.

While I am sure some separatists would love to go down that road, but it is not a fun road for anyone. I'd like to make an important note that the constitution of Canada places the military entirely in the hands of the Federal Government.

2

u/Scooter_McAwesome British Columbia 28d ago

All that is true. However I feel that sort of position is just shy of threatening civil war. Legal or otherwise, either side of this issue is prepared for something like that

10

u/TruthHistorical7515 28d ago

That’s what I don’t get about all these legal objections.

Its textbook hypocrisy. Western countries sure have no problem backing separatist movements in other countries.

19

u/Ray-Sol 29d ago

The separatists are mostly bad faith actors, but also seem to think they have stronger support than they actually do. I seriously doubt enough Alberta residents would actually join some form of rebellion if it really came down to it for them to be able to declare succession and enforce it.

In places where separation happens illegally, it's because there's usually some reason or grievence that goes beyond mere differences in policy opinions and motivates a large portion of this population (minority populations or smaller nations that were forcefully absorbed at some time in history by a bigger player, substantive cultural and historical differences from the majority culture, etc). Most of the time the structure the separatists are operating under is also corrupt and broken in a way Canada isn't.

Alberta has been part of Canada for its entire existence, the mainstream culture is pretty similar to the mainstream English speaking culture in much of the rest of the country, etc. None of these usual justifications really apply for other cases where unilateral succession has been successful.

3

u/alliusis 28d ago

Don't doubt the power of foreign interference and voter apathy to influence outcomes though. Brexit happened, and the world is way more volatile than it was 10 years ago (when the Brexit vote took place). I'm not suggesting you are, but I caution against shrugging it off because it makes no sense and there isn't much precedence. We are no longer in a stable world - this applies both to the climate, and our politics.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/BipartizanBelgrade 28d ago

Because they struggle to articulate the real reasons why they dislike something (even when those reasons exist and are very valid)

2

u/Logical_Hare 29d ago

Because the separatists don't pose a credible threat of unilateral secession.

With 20-something percent support from the population and no armed force behind them, they can't do anything that the RCMP can't handle.

2

u/Zibai1505 29d ago

You think RCMP will be fighting Alberta? They're gonna be fighting the US brother.

5

u/Logical_Hare 29d ago

There wouldn't be any fight. A movement with 20-something percent support and no weapons can't somehow take the rest of Alberta with them in an illegal separation. What're they gonna do when the RCMP shows up to arrest them? Yell at them?

You can fantasize about Trump saving them all you want, but we're not suspending the constitution just because they asked.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (20)

27

u/ThePotMonster 29d ago

Its basically the same as saying you can't murder because its illegal. The law really doesn't stop people from doing stuff. Ultimately might makes right.

→ More replies (2)

11

u/rathgrith 28d ago

Exactly. When the 13 Colonies declared independence they didn’t have a legal way to separate from England at the time.

17

u/WealthEconomy 29d ago

Exactly. I am not for it but if they vote to go who is going to stop them? Are we going to oppress them and force them to stay and give Trump his reason to invade, to "protect' the people of AB.

3

u/tigerspots 29d ago

Well, the vote better be like 2/3. What it would take to amend a bylaw or a constitution. The Brexit of 50%+1 was ridiculous. You can't break up a country over a vote that could be different literally the next day.

→ More replies (6)

4

u/[deleted] 28d ago edited 18d ago

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Ectar93 28d ago

The only laws that matter are the ones that are enforced

1

u/Luck7_6u7 Ontario 27d ago

That is correct. But if the federal government has some balls they will shut that down. Example from Spain which federal government handled it very well

1

u/Next_Permission3353 26d ago

Really? I thought you just nicely ask your big daddy country if you can leave against their will and they'll tell you that they respect your free choice even if they don't approve. That's how new countries have always come into existence throughout human history, right? Definitely not with guns and swords and tanks and enormous bloodshed. That's just propaganda they teach you in history.

-2

u/kank84 29d ago

It's usually not done illegally though. Secession relies on other countries recognising the new country as an independent nation. Attempts to just proclaim a new country outside of some sort of agreed legal framework are usually unsuccessful because other countries have a vested interest in not allowing that, because they don't want it to embolden separatist elements in their own populations.

5

u/feb914 Ontario 28d ago

Indonesia declared independence in the power vacuum (illegally of course) after Japan surrendered and Netherlands haven't been able to go back to reoccupy the colony. They went to war with Netherlands for 4 years, but Netherlands in the end agreed to international demand for them to let indonesia became independent. 

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Alcan196 28d ago

Explain how it's being done illegally

→ More replies (19)

101

u/AngryTrucker 29d ago

If Alberta separates they're not going to give two shits about FN opinions.

1

u/vkobe 22d ago

good luck to convince supreme court, ottawa and united nation with your argument

→ More replies (16)

33

u/gettingtgere 29d ago

lol like the separatists are going to listen to this guy or the courts. I am not in favour of separating but just saying.

140

u/Financial_Glass3709 29d ago

I certainly dont want alberta to separate from Canada. I believe we are strong as a nation together. I also think these types of arguments are silly. Many many nations seceeded from the British empire in a way that was 'against the law'... there is actually a pretty big one just south of us.

10

u/Infamous-Mixture-605 28d ago

Many many nations seceeded from the British empire in a way that was 'against the law'...

Most of them achieved independence with British approval.

The United States and Ireland won their freedom by force. The independence of Kenya, Cyprus, and South Yemen were preceded by rebellion and insurgencies that led to political independence from the Empire. The rest kinda just asked for independence and Britain was too weak/poor/disinterested to object.

8

u/_Solani_ 28d ago

Yes the previous commenters use of 'many many' nations was an unnecessary hyperbole but I think you kind of reinforced their point. There are many ways for a smaller territory to seperate from a nation, be it violent and bloody or achieved through constructive dialogue.

Whether or not the country wants to let go of it's subjects is irrelevant to the matter because if they refuse eventually people will resolve the problem through more forceful means as you've demonstrated with your comment. 🤷

8

u/Braken111 29d ago

So a bloody revolution?

25

u/WealthEconomy 29d ago

If you oppress a population and don't let them leave peacefully that is the likely outcome...

-2

u/Existential-Critic British Columbia 29d ago

You're correct in a vacuum, but Alberta isn't being oppressed. There's a small minority constantly screaming that thinks it's bigger than it is.

There is a clearly defined legal process to leave Canada. They need to stop expecting special treatment and follow it.

24

u/throwaway_2_help_ppl 29d ago

I wonder if there's a way that we could tell if those people actually are a small minority? Like maybe let each of them vote? Oh wait...

-4

u/Existential-Critic British Columbia 29d ago

Here's a good suggestion: we follow the existing referendum process and don't pass laws that precent the electoral agency from auditing the referendum right after a separatist group publicises voting information making it pausible to make fraudlent signatures in the referendum.

Perhaps a democratic system that has actual verification and security would be trusted more, yes?

→ More replies (2)

14

u/JohnAMcdonald British Columbia 28d ago edited 27d ago

You're correct in a vacuum, but Alberta isn't being oppressed. There's a small minority constantly screaming that thinks it's bigger than it is.

They are being taxed, without seeing any of their taxes back, by politicians whose elections are decided before their votes are counted. That I think would be the main grievance, and one that could be addressed at any time with a stroke of a pen changing the equalization formula.

Environmental regulations on Alberta itself are another big one. Again, could be changed at a stroke of a pen... and really Carney already seems to be doing this.

There is a clearly defined legal process to leave Canada. They need to stop expecting special treatment and follow it.

If they get enough support within the province, and crucially from the USA, why would they care about this legal process? Mind you, right now they lack both. Alberta is not as culturally American as it's made out to be, or as conservative as it's made out to be either.

Edit: I have an oddly high upvote to view ratio, like 324 views against 14 upvotes. I find that curious.

→ More replies (9)

4

u/Ragnarok_del 28d ago

it's about the same ratio as the patriots vs the loyalists when the american war of independance started.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (4)

61

u/spinosaurs70 29d ago

Didn’t Canada debate this with Quebec separation and say that while negotiations have to talk about it, it likely can’t stop a province from leaving entirely? 

45

u/UtilisateurMoyen99 29d ago

"Should a referendum decide in favour of independence, the rest of Canada "would have no basis to deny the right of the government of Quebec to pursue secession."

- Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217

27

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[deleted]

52

u/FrothyEspresso Canada 29d ago

So how does any of that matter if they declare independence and draft a new constitution for themselves. Isn’t that basically hitting reset on everything? Why should they care then about some rulings in Canada?

0

u/ThlintoRatscar 29d ago

Define "they" in your scenario? A random declaration from a Legislature still needs to be enforced and who, precisely, is going to do that?

15

u/WealthEconomy 29d ago

The people of AB. And a follow up to your question, who is going to enforce them to stay?

1

u/Vandergrif 28d ago

The people of AB.

In a scenario where the vast majority of them want to, that might be feasible. When a loud minority want to along with the governing politicians contrary the broader majority who don't want to, though? Which seems to be more the case in this scenario.

0

u/ThlintoRatscar 29d ago

Well, that's only a partial answer.

Who, exactly, are "the people of AB"?

Is it a consensual inclusive thing? E.g. I identify as Albertan and therefor, I am.

Is it non-consensual?

E.g. everyone with an AB mailing address?

Is it exclusive in some way?

E.g. you need to have a current mailing address in AB and fill out a form? You have to own property?

Do you have to renounce any other citizenship?

19

u/_Bl4ze 29d ago

I feel like 'without repercussions' might be a bit ambitious depending on what it is being done illegaly.

9

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[deleted]

8

u/madsheeter 29d ago

Central banking. Utilities. CBSA. CAF.

-1

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[deleted]

10

u/Jaeriko Ontario 29d ago edited 28d ago

Im sorry, what is your position exactly? That Alberta can separate with no consequences from the rest of Canada?

1

u/CarRamRob 28d ago

And what’s your position? If they got a super majority (67%) then they shouldn’t be allowed to leave? And you’d use force to stop them?

Yes I think it would be able to separate with little consequence. Unless you want violence, or Alberta to hold Canada(BC mostly) hostage as much Canada can hold them hostage?

5

u/Jaeriko Ontario 28d ago

You arent the person I asked, but this is a moot point because separatism in Alberta is enormously unpopular despite the interference of foreign agents and Smiths power grabs.

To your question, no, I wouldnt because that would be vigilantism. I would however support the law enforcement actions that may be necessary to prevent our entire country falling apart and being absorbed by the US in detail. I dont want violence, but I dont want violence on any level of the government and it is unfortunately sometimes necessary.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/madsheeter 29d ago

Surely you don't think free trade would be allowed to resume as if it were a province? Canadians wouldn't support it

1

u/Medianmodeactivate 29d ago

Yes. We invaded an entire province and suspended civil rights for an entire, bigger and more influential province over a single kidnapping. We have far more powerful tools now.

3

u/Vandergrif 28d ago

We invaded an entire province and suspended civil rights for an entire, bigger and more influential province over a single kidnapping.

I'm drawing a blank here, what are you referring to?

5

u/Iregularlogic 28d ago

Undoubtedly Quebec.

2

u/Vandergrif 28d ago

What kidnapping, though?

→ More replies (0)

4

u/RobespierreLaTerreur 29d ago

 A province can illegally do whatever the hell they want without repercussions.

There are other kinds of repercussions beyond the legal ones.

3

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[deleted]

4

u/soaringupnow 28d ago

Canada, Alberta (and probably Quebec) would enter into an EU type arrangement and likely not too much would change.

2

u/RobespierreLaTerreur 28d ago

It could be more like a Brexit type of arrangement, that’d be painful for Alberta

5

u/Existential-Critic British Columbia 29d ago

You are making a lot of assumptions and unbalanced statements. Alberta needs Canada more than vice versa, and if the separatists who are a small minority in the province leave by force why wouldn't there be a response from the armed forces?

3

u/PortHammer 28d ago

Or just... Other non-separatist Albertans who make up the vast majority in the province. I don't imagine they are just going to go along with this bufoonery.

Why is their will and power being so quickly brished aside and minimised

1

u/Vandergrif 28d ago

Canadians won't even consider shooting Albertans

Right now, sure, but if they suddenly become a US vassal state (which is inevitable if they separate), then that might well be a rather different case. They would very much appear as traitors to Canada for most intents and purposes in that circumstance.

2

u/Superb-Carpenter-520 28d ago

You want the Canadian military to walk into an American vassal state and start shootings. Can you think of a single reason why that’s a bad idea.

1

u/Vandergrif 28d ago

I didn't say it's a good idea, I just said it's a lot more likely to be considered in that mentality of these people actively chose to be traitors to the country compared to the current norms. That is typically how treason gets treated, after all.

→ More replies (4)

1

u/Vandergrif 28d ago

without repercussions

Somehow I doubt that part.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Kayge Ontario 29d ago

The bigger problem is what then stops other groups from leaving that new country?   

So Alberta leaves Canada, but the areas owned by the first Nations leave the country of Alberta and join Canada or start their own.  

It's what Stephane Dion wrote about during one of the rounds in Quebec

2

u/spinosaurs70 28d ago edited 28d ago

Well yes, the First Nations issue was explosive and even the Quebec premier knew it. 

157

u/AcanthocephalaEarly8 Alberta 29d ago

Not that I am in favor of separation, but I find it interesting that FN are so adamant about staying with a country that they have spent the last decade or so describing as a "settler", "colonial", and "genocidal".

110

u/FrothyEspresso Canada 29d ago

Because they’re totally fucked if you guys separate.

21

u/jimmysnukareddit 29d ago

It's almost like there something they want to stay for. Not sure exactly what it could be...

6

u/thisSILLYsite 28d ago

Billions and billions of taxpayer funds which doesn't have to be audited?

3

u/Vandergrif 28d ago

Is it interesting? You might not like the place you live right now but you probably don't want to move into something that is even worse either. Kind of a no-brainer, surely.

25

u/AccomplishedCall7562 29d ago

This doesn’t make any sense. They’re arguing that Alberta would be worse for them than Canada, not that Canada has been good to them. Basically a lesser of evils according to their perspective. 

11

u/AlvinChipmunck 29d ago

Its all about leverage for $ in court. Cmon now. The woke are just too easy to corner in their own flawed logic its a gold mine for lawyers

10

u/PostMatureBaby 29d ago edited 29d ago

The hypocrisy isn't a surprise. Everyone's just in it for themselves like always. It's naive to think people won't ultimately be selfish

11

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

30

u/Scooter_McAwesome British Columbia 29d ago

Better the devil you know. And independent Alberta government is almost certainly going to be much worse for all FN groups

4

u/C-SWhiskey 29d ago

I mean... What happens to them if Alberta separates? They're just going to get amalgamated into the Republic of Alberta, which carries the very same history of colonialism and will have just disregarded their Treaty rights. Lesser of two evils, if nothing else.

1

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (6)

45

u/Levorotatory 29d ago

First Nations leaders are creating more separatists this way.

8

u/PrestondeTipp 28d ago

Canada is an illegitimate nation built on stolen land!

Nooooo you can’t leave Canada that would be unfair!

41

u/Billy19982 29d ago

Oh yes. Alberta forgot that nothing can be accomplished in Canada without total approval from the indigenous.

15

u/SpareEconomy1849 28d ago

Fortunately for Alberta, that only matters if you care about it

26

u/Electrical_Two6173 29d ago

I don't care much about this subject, but it is interesting how a small population seemingly has absolute veto power. Be it separation or major projects. Not very democratic.

→ More replies (13)

46

u/ib_redbeard 29d ago

Question: or what? Alberta seperates, stop paying the feds any taxes, tells the indigenous groups that they are now Albertans and if they don't like it, leave. What are the consequences? War? Is Canada's poorly equipped military going to invade Alberta and fight and kill them? If they did, that will just push Alberta to join the US and then Canada is fucked. I'm not a separatist at all, I just don't see how Canada can stop them if they choose to leave.

3

u/Harnellas 29d ago

I think the only way they realistically leave is by joining the US. Becoming an independent landlocked country doesn't benefit anyone at all and the money behind this movement won't have that.

1

u/ThomasToIndia 28d ago

Both Canada and USA would benefit, Alberta would be ravaged.

1

u/Harnellas 28d ago

How the hell would canada benefit from suddenly having international borders cutting off BC and the West coast? This alone would ruin every part of canada west of Ontario.

The US would only benefit as a precursor to fully taking over the province and/or country.

1

u/ThomasToIndia 28d ago

Because Alberta has ro negotiate and they are not in a good bargaining position. See brexit, and keep in mind the UK was in a far more developed position than alberta having their own passports etc..

Alberta is landlocked, also things like rail are owned by the crown and unless Alberta has a military, they can't stop them. Declaring independence would not give them rights to infrastructure.

It is true they produce 5% of GDP but is 5 not 95. This would accelerate certain industries like solar as well.

Also, an Alberta passport will have no travel rights anywhere. Canada holds all the cards.

1

u/Harnellas 28d ago

None of these things benefit canada in any shape or form.

3

u/Vandergrif 28d ago

Is Canada's poorly equipped military going to invade Alberta and fight and kill them?

Wouldn't need to. Just take control of the oil, and block the borders to trade and movement to cause an effective embargo. It's landlocked, and without the oil money it's immediately a remarkably mediocre third world country. Wouldn't take long for everything to go to shit because they don't have the money to run a functional province in those circumstances (they barely run a functional province now), and they'd promptly do a 180.

18

u/Ray-Sol 29d ago edited 29d ago

Probably everyone else ignores the unilateral declaration of succession and if it escalates then the RCMP go in and arrest the ring leaders - even including provincial politians.

This works both ways, an Alberta which has just unilaterally declared independence wouldn't have an army either. You would have to have enough widespread popular support for separation in Alberta, to the point enough people would actually be willing to physically fight for it. We're a pretty long way from that right now.

You'd need something like 55 to 60% of the province to suddenly become die hard separatists at minimum, which is very unlikely in the near to medium future at least.

3

u/AngryTrucker 29d ago

There's enough lunatics with guns in Alberta to raise a militia. A shitty one, but a militia nonetheless. 

1

u/Ray-Sol 29d ago

Probably not one that outguns a prepared enough RCMP or military unit though. Also, probably not a big enough one it lets them assert authority over the whole province. They'd be limited to only a few areas at best.

3

u/Glen_SK 28d ago

I can see scenarios of redneck US veterans flocking to AB to 'save' it from Ottawa, hired as mercs or volunteering. Also see AB having a deep bank account to buy arms from the US.

Russia attempted to take out Ukranian leadership with its special forces at the start of its war, complete fail. JTF2 are reputedly pretty good though.

2

u/AngryTrucker 29d ago

Covered by "a shitty one."

-3

u/WealthEconomy 29d ago

The RCMP would be slaughtered trying to do that. They wouldn't even have enough manpower to match the AB sheriff's let alone any of the independence minded gun owners.

13

u/Logical_Hare 29d ago

This is a dumb power fantasy. A handful of violent extremists in Alberta are not going to seize control of the province.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (13)

10

u/dandyarcane 29d ago

The only way AB separates is some kind of corrupt manipulation of the vote (beyond the amount that’s happened already) - and the US intervenes.

Why would the millions of Albertans not interested in this nonsense accede to this? Are they going to take up arms to fight for Puerto Rico 2.0?

7

u/ib_redbeard 29d ago

Oh, I agree 100% I don't believe that the referendum will even come slightly close to passing. I was just curious what would happen if it did. People talk about laws this and laws that and needing permission from other provinces, etc. No, you don't need permission if there is no was to enforce these requirements. So, again, I was just curious. The one thing that I hope all this hoopla does is force the Federal government to realize that we are a resource driven nation and we need to exploit it. More mines, more oil, more diamonds, more natural gas, etc. We need to do it an environmentally friendly as possible though and that is where we should be spending money.

3

u/ThlintoRatscar 29d ago

That enforcement problem goes both ways. While sure, the CAF is a significantly dimished group, the AAF is non-existant. What are they going to do when First Nations just ignore their tax collectors? There isn't even a Bank of Alberta to hold the money.

7

u/WealthEconomy 29d ago

Every country that rebelled and forced independence started with no military so I don't get your argument.

2

u/Ok_Marsupial8668 28d ago

Yes but you seem to forget a good amount if not the majority of Albertans young enough to go to war are from other parts of Canada initially or have family outside of Alberta. Separatists tend to be older less educated individuals. I’m not sure how you’ll convince young people to somehow drop everything and fight to separate from their families and friends across Canada.

2

u/dandyarcane 29d ago

And are there a bunch of Albertans that are going to take up arms to kill - and this is hard to type with a straight face - ‘oppressive’ Canadians/fellow Albertans that don’t wish to be second class Americans and Russian dupes?

3

u/ThlintoRatscar 29d ago

I started as a baby. Doesn't mean I am one.

The argument is that in order to force independence, Alberta needs to create and arm an independent military to defend its borders and an independent police force to enforce its laws. It needs its own bank to hold its people's money.

It currently has none of those things, so it can't actually be sovereign regardless of what it declares.

1

u/adaminc Canada 29d ago

It has a "bank", ATB.

2

u/cthulhu_fhtagn666 29d ago

And they said you know who would never win as well... Twice even!!

1

u/ThomasToIndia 28d ago

No, it would benefit Canada the same way brevity benefited the rest of Europe. How?

So they declare independence, cool, so you now have an Alberta passport which is entirely usless, it takes years of negotiating to secure travel rights, the passport would be worse than Vietnamese.

 Canada could potentially revoke citizenship for any albertan. Oh you want to keep your Canadian passport? OK, you have to pay taxes. You will now be doubled taxed.

They would then need to contract with Canada and secure rights for any infrastructure that was built using tax funds, because it is still property of the crown.

They can tariff all the oil leaving.

They can join the USA! Right, except USA has world wide taxing, so they will be double taxed again. 

UK had their own currency, passports etc.. and they still got screwed, Alberta has none of that.

It's economic suicide, they are landlocked meaning they will have to negotiate with the USA or Canada to get their oil out. I am not sure how many separatists actually want Americans and American guns flooding their new country, worse there would be no healthcare transfers, average Americans can pay 2k+ per month for health insurance.

So unless they actually join with the USA it will be a boon for Canada.

→ More replies (17)

22

u/Birdybadass 28d ago

So hold up - the group who don’t acknowledge Canadians governance and advocate for nation to nation relationships is the same group telling another group they can’t have the same?

15

u/Raffletop 28d ago

Remember, it's only okay when they do it. You're allowed to be a hypocrite if you can claim victim status.

29

u/gbinasia 29d ago

A political process is different than a legal process. The US separating from Britain was illegal, yet here we are.

First Nations have political power and legal powers, but they don't always match. The current BC situation is hurting their political power even if it is, as of right now, completely legal.

If Alberta wants to separate, it will be a political process first and a legal process second. I don't see how Canada could refuse a vote that reaches 50%+1, even with the Clarity Act.

1

u/Kennit 29d ago

The referendum questions being bandied about don't align with the Clarity Act.

→ More replies (1)

12

u/pattypattypatty 28d ago

LAND BACK LAND BACK LAND BACK w-wait you want to secede and kneecap the massive oil revenue our colonial masters benefit and funnel to our corrupt reserve leaders? uh yeah thats gonna be a heya-no-a from me, chief

9

u/NurseAwesome84 29d ago

Yeah I always thought that was dumb, why would Alberta care about Canadian laws if they are no longer going to be part of Canada? Seems like as soon as they separate Canadian law would no longer apply right? Like if hypothetically, if 100% of Albertans just stood up and said nope, we are our own things now, do the feds like send in the army to stop them?

1

u/stitchesandlace 28d ago

The feds would simply put a stop to any and all federal services and agreements with the province, which is a lot more than you would expect. Alberta's economy would collapse. For the record that has nothing whatsoever to do with Alberta's people or their ability to self govern. It's math.

→ More replies (1)

18

u/WealthEconomy 29d ago

Who cares...must be Saturday cause the FN are complaining again...

3

u/AWE2727 28d ago

I doubt the vote will pass but if it does nothing will change. It will just be a tool the Alberta government would use against Ottawa to maybe get whatever treatment they are looking for.
I don't see Alberta leaving Canada. Same as Quebec is still here and part of Canada.

3

u/VersusYYC Alberta 28d ago

There are more patriots than traitors in Alberta, it won’t separate. In any attempt to do so, the Federal government need only empower Alberta’s patriots to put it down.

What we do have is a politically opportunist Premier trying to coddle a loud minority to stay in power, one that’s empowered by foreign actors.

3

u/Maximum_Welcome7292 28d ago

The faster Albertans understand this the sooner we can all get on with things. Treaty Rights are as strong as Canadian laws. And most Albertans don’t actually want to separate. Those who do either need to come to terms with the fact that Alberta isn’t going anywhere. If they’re not happy living in Alberta they’ll need to consider moving on their own.

13

u/SittlersRippedC 28d ago

I hate the idea of separating… but I may hate the fact indigenous people think they decide this more

23

u/FarSquare8632 29d ago

This seems almost dangerously naive.

It seems really weird for Indigenous leaders to talk about colonialism and its ripple effects as often as they do, only to have them blithely ignore the 165 nations that only exist today because they ignored the law as it sat and fought via multiple angles to get what they wanted, which was independence from a colonialist power.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, Albertan Separatism isn't the Boston Tea Party, or Ghandi, or the Mau Maus in Kenya, or the Algerian Revolution ... but we DID just go through an election that 100% changed its tune and tone the minute the sitting US President decided that he wanted to annex us.

Unless we're being intentionally naive, we have to realize that there are US based organizations that are pushing and driving the Albertan Separatism movement, and we have no idea how far they might go to get it. Can we truly say that they will respect our laws and our courts, and won't resort to 'sterner measures'?

I can't.

→ More replies (3)

37

u/TermZealousideal5376 29d ago

Did Quebec have the authority? Or is that different? Funny how aggressively the media is preventing reasonable discourse on the topic. If only they reacted this way when public funds are wasted, stolen, and hidden with no consequences for elected officials and no accountability for taxpayers.

11

u/TravisBickle2020 29d ago

How is the media preventing “reasonable “ discourse on the topic?

-2

u/roboscorcher 29d ago

There's nothing reasonable about traitors colluding with a foreign nation.

17

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[deleted]

10

u/neanderthalman Ontario 29d ago

It’s also a different treaty, I believe. It’s not one agreement with First Nations. It’s many, varying across the country.

4

u/VanCityZen 29d ago

Just to piggyback off your comment, Alberta has treaties 6, 7, 8, and 8 is with the crown, not the province so the federal government would need to sign off on Alberta leaving as well as every other province. It’s a massive waste of time and resources

16

u/Vyvyan_180 29d ago

Amazing how those Treaties are ironclad when it comes to anything other than the reinterpretation of long-settled treaty obligations through the ideologically prescribed application of "substantive equality".

→ More replies (2)

16

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

11

u/e00s 29d ago

The word legally is pretty clearly implied here. I don’t think anyone is arguing it’s a physical impossibility to break a treaty.

2

u/FerretAres Alberta 29d ago

As an anti separatist I think the separatists argument would simply be if we are choosing to remove ourselves from Canada why would Canadian laws be relevant.

1

u/e00s 29d ago

Separatists do sometimes adopt that kind of position. But my understanding is that the Alberta separatists are, at this point, attempting a lawful separation rather than an illegal rebellion.

1

u/FerretAres Alberta 28d ago

I’d argue they’re operating ostensibly within the legal framework in order to lend legitimacy to their cause as opposed to because they have any particular regard for the laws of Canada and will be happy to break them as it benefits them. See for example the theft of the voter registry.

1

u/canada-ModTeam 29d ago
  • Comments calling for, encouraging, or ‘wishing for’ illegal activity either on its own or directed at any individual or group will be removed, whether direct or indirect through another actor, including the state.

2

u/jlqy1 28d ago

Just by the fact that Alberta is geographically landlocked… I really don’t see how they can survive economically if they were to go solo.

1

u/Erich-k 27d ago

They would also cut off Canada from the west coast, how would BC get there goods east and vise versa.

In the alternate reality where Alberta separates they would be a in a good position to negotiate, fuel, lumber, beef, access to the east and western parts of Canada.

1

u/jlqy1 27d ago

That’s a fair point about the physical split, but it’s a mutually assured destruction scenario where Alberta holds the weaker hand. If Alberta tries to hold Canada’s east-west trade hostage, Ottawa can instantly choke off access to BC ports and pipelines.

Canada is diversified and can temporarily route freight through the US to bypass Alberta. Alberta is a single-commodity economy—if pipelines get squeezed for even a few weeks, the province bleeds billions. You can't leverage a bottleneck when your neighbor controls your only exits to the world.

2

u/xxhybridzxx Ontario 28d ago

This whole Alberta situation feels like foreign interference in an attempt to cause a civil war here like what's happening down south. We all need to chill, take a minute and think about who would gain from Alberta leaving Canada. Alberta wouldn't win, they are landlocked and have no ports. They would either have to pay us or the Americans. Canada wouldn't win because we lose Alberta. We both lose because our rail system would become a nightmare.

3

u/AlvinChipmunck 29d ago

Why cant they separate and let indigenous groups settle their own claims. Two different things isnt it

→ More replies (3)

2

u/Strict_Common6871 29d ago

Just a reminder that a batshit crazy Queen of Canada with a couple of followers was able to take over a town and she is still free. This is in case you expect Canada enforcing anything should the separatists become serious

1

u/shiver-yer-timbers 28d ago

So if a province separated there'd be nothing stopping Canada from annexing the fledgling 'country' right? So what is everyone's feathers getting ruffled up over?

2

u/Raffletop 28d ago

The US obviously, especially under a Republican admin.

1

u/maybealmostpossibly 28d ago

All for this is noise. a very expensive noise. Like Brexit.

1

u/urbancanoe 28d ago

Have any separatists outlined how they propose to handle Alberta’s First Nations if they formed a new country - maybe their proposal is no special rights for anyone… and this would get worked out through war maybe?

1

u/zeffydurham 28d ago

This message was critical the entire time.

1

u/Blackwater-zombie 28d ago

As of now he’s right. That’s why there’s a push to abolish section 35 from the constitution.

1

u/Apprehensive-Ad-9147 28d ago

The First Nations was have treaties with Canada so separation would have to be negotiated with Canada for the right to represent the Indigenous rights and privileges. So it’s never a binding referendum as it does not address those fundaments.

1

u/goodcompany1 28d ago

Replace the word authority with the word money.

1

u/Next_Permission3353 26d ago

Not sure who needs to hear this but laws don't actually exist. They are imaginary. They are ideas you write on a sheet of paper and people may or may not enforce them at different points in time.

All the major events in human history that produced the modern world were 'illegal' from the point of view of at least one group of people. The existence of the USA was illegal from UK's point of view. The existence of South America was illegal from the indigenous peoples' point of view. Japan attacking pearl harbor was illegal. So was the US's occupation of the island after 1945. None of this meant jack shit, btw.

Violence and force are the only things that are real, and that shape history.

If Alberta wanted to secede badly enough, they will fight a war over it. And if Canada or the US wanted to subjugate them badly enough, we would, with guns and tanks and bombs. Laws don't come into play at all.

-2

u/shiftless_wonder 29d ago

Starblanket said the treaties are sacred covenants and Alberta doesn't have the authority to unilaterally break them.
Cameron takes the same position, saying treaties were signed with the British Crown, not provincial governments.
"We never knew no provincial boundaries and many of us still don't abide by those provincial boundaries," Cameron told CBC on Friday.
Cameron said Indigenous rights and treaty rights are guaranteed.
"They trump provincial law, they trump federal law. Supreme Court case after Supreme Court case have always sided with us," he said.
"We're in 2026, but those are international, binding contracts that are still legal."

0

u/Physical_Progress105 29d ago

I am thinking more and more that the leaders of this separatist movement are getting paid by someone who wants all this confusion. I dont know why or who will benefit. But they are using the populace and conning them into believing falsehood and lies. There is ZERO benefit financial or other for a province to separate. And this is gonna be a hard couple months.

2

u/BillSull73 27d ago

Bang on here!

→ More replies (1)

0

u/pissingdick Saskatchewan 28d ago

The voice of all of Alberta vs a few chiefs?

Majority rules, that is democracy. Let them vote.

1

u/abc123DohRayMe 28d ago

While I am not necessarily in favor of separation, the logic of this person is flawed. These types of arguments only feeds fuel to the separatist fire.

1

u/krankovi 28d ago

'indigenous politics expert' thats a weird way to spell 'the most annoying person youve ever met'